How many MP would have changed your mind about the 5d3.

[Actionpix]

Oké, lets say it in a different way. I would like a camera with a sensor that matches my $10K+ lenses, designed for full frame. (I like the maximum possible. Going for bigger pixels because else lens and user shortcomings would become to visible is not who I am.)

 

[dbduchene]

At 3500 for me it would have to really meet the performance that they are stating that this one will met AND be at least 30 MP. Unless the unless it is truly 2 stops better in both ISO and DR I will not consider it and will wait. landscape and such you can use a tripod if you have to and I have not hit that point. I can use my 1st gen 5D with my 17-35 lens at f-2.8 up to 4/5ths of a sec. Give me the 2 stops of the Mark 2 that I picked up for 1200 with some people panicking and I can do a lot. If I need more than that I will just use a tripod. For now I will be sitting this out on the sidelines.

 

[t.linn]

The fact that so much of the marketing spin on specs for pro cameras apply to jpg not raw bugs me. I dont care at all how many stops blah blah on jpg... I want to know for the raw. I shoot raw, I edit raw... thats what needs comparing...

I completely agree. And add to this the hype for in-camera features like multiple exposures. Strip out the gimmicks and stuff aimed at newbies (A+ mode, anyone?) and build in an intervalometer or something that is useful to serious users.

Having said that, I have no issues with this DSLR. It is exactly what people have been asking for. It is the digital EOS 3, a largely pro body and feature set in a smaller, more manageable, more affordable size. Finally we get pro AF, five stops of exposure compensation, auto-ISO in manual, up to 7 frames of exposure bracketing, dual axis levels, gapless microlenses, and (hopefully) better weather sealing. These aren't gee-whiz features (except for the AF!); these are features that will actually make a difference in day to day use.

The fact that people are clamoring for more megapixels is surprising given the trade off in resolution at small apertures and the inevitable reduction in low light performance. How long have Nikon users championed the low light capabilities of the D3 and D700? That's likely gone; certainly relative to the 5D III. How many of us have bemoaned the prioritization of more pixels over increased IQ? And now there is complaining because Canon has seen the light?

 

[yankidank]

1. A 5D3 at $3500, 28+ MP would change my mind.
2. A 5D3 with 22MP at $2999 would change my mind.
3. A 5D3 at $3500 and a D800 at $3500+ would change my mind.

I completely agree with all of this. I have been praying for an updated 5D to replace my 7D, but this price point is a bit too high. Take it down to $2,999 and I see it as being a fair and competitive price for what they are offering. If you go back and look at the 5D MKII initial price and adjust for inflation, I think it only works out to be ~$2,900. I feel like the changes made to this new version are only addressing issues raised about the MKII, rather than a revolutionary change that justifies a $600 bump over the previous model's price tag.

I sense that they will have a lot of initial sales from people like me who have been eagerly awaiting an updated 5D, but Canon is going to lose a lot of potential new customers to Nikon at this price. A year from now, just after the holidays, we will probably see the price drop closer to the $3,000 mark. In the meantime I will have to live with my 7D.

 

[Mappy]

22MP is fine, but at $3500 I'd hoped for some of these extra's (in no particular order):
- 1080p60 movie mode
- radio flash transmitter built in
- wifi built in
- articulated screen
- timelapse mode
- autofocus tracking in movie mode with 100k metering sensor

Even though photo quality should be great, in order to keep selling this cam for the next 3-4 years it would be nice to tick some boxes in the shoppers' wishlists that will match specs of cams to come

 

[birtembuk]

This will undoubtedly be a solid and very capable camera. For pros (photo-video) having used the 5D2 for three years or so, I guess the upgrade is worth it because it mostly addresses their concerns and wishes. Now, for me it looks like Canon did not want to make ripples, and capitalize on a successful model, especially in the video compartment. I read somewhere (sorry for the author but I can't remember where and the detailed argument) that 22 MP is the perfect number for video in terms of whatever scaling, compression, sampling etc.

Expensive, conservative, solid. But no thrill. A bit like Toyota cars. I am left with the feeling that something is brewing somewhere in the digital imaging world. New developments are coming from here and there and it looks like Canon has no immediate answer. My gut feel is that they just released conservative models to satisfy their base customers ( hence the name 5DIII). while new stuff w/ higher pixel count or whatever makes photography more thrilling is being developed.

I'll wait for comparative reviews of those recently released beasts. Since however it's my belief that we are soon going to see some 3D or 4D or even 6D with more oomph, I'll willing to wait a few more months and see.

 

[Jimmy_D]

I frequent the Gigapixel website, so for Landscapes, a 40+MP camera does produce better images (with the right lenses and sensor pixel size, etc...). It's not to say that I can't take some perfect shots with the 21MP 5Dm2.

I do think that Canon should look into making a high MP medium format camera for the landscape and architecture photographer...

+1000 i believe it's the time for a high MP camera since:
1. canon has upgraded most of it's lenses for greater resolution.
2. canon has already announced a camera for photojournalists and for sports fans as well as a camera mainly for videomakers.
the only categories of photographers that are left without a dedicated camera are landscape/architect/studio/portrait. where all need high MP camera for better detail. the waiting time for a high MP camera begun with the announcement of the 5d mark3!!

 

[MaGiL]

I don't care about more megapixel. Current 21 mp from the 5DII are fine for me.

 

[pwp]

22 MP is plenty for most but not all photographers. I shoot double page spreads, glossy full page/full bleed plus billboards with a 16 MP 1D Mk4 and both the clients and myself are completely satisfied with the results.

Canon has built the 5DIII specced pretty close to what the majority of photographers who offered feedback on the 5DII. Better low light and better AF and no more MP's were constant requests. The new 61 point AF has exceeded expectations by a huge margin. Most of us were hoping for a 19 point 7D style AF at best.

Some landscape and architectural photographers for whom the massive financial leap to medium format would be business suicide rightly hoped for the 5DIII to be the megapixel monster that would be very suitable for their line of work.

22 MP is going to suit the greater percentage of potential 5DIII buyers, but there is definitely room for a separate 35-45 MP model.
Is this the 5DX? If it's properly put together it would steal a LOT of sales of the lower end MF and D800 market.

Frankly I'd be astonished if Canon didn't ship their megapixel monster in the near future.

Paul Wright

 

[XanuFoto]

1. A 5D3 at $3500, 28+ MP would change my mind.
2. A 5D3 with 22MP at $2999 would change my mind.
3. A 5D3 at $3500 and a D800 at $3500+ would change my mind.

Don't get me wrong I still have plans to get a 5D3. At $3500 I'm sure they will still be hard to find for the rest of the year! Funny thing is has anyone considered that Nikon under valued the D800? I mean they could price that thing at $3500 - $3700 and it would still sell.

Yes you are right. Nikon could have easily charged 3500 and got away with it. Anybody who is invested in 10000 to 20000 of Nikon lenses would not be that bothered to spend another 500. But I think. Ikon is trying to build market share and that's why they underpriced and over engi erred the d800. IMHO.

 

[bycostello]

MP is more or less irrelevant now.... in fact too many would put me off, file size processing speed in pst etc being a factor...

 

[skoobey]

22mpix.

I like the camera, and I'll probably buy it, it's just that I don't need it right now, wait until 5dII gets it's number of shots I guess.

I wouldn't have like it any more or less if it had 36 mpix, but I think that anyone who is into studio shoots will be tempted by the Nikon. Especially if they don't have a FF camera.

I'll stick with 5dII for at least a year or two. Also, I'd rather buy 85mm 1,2 then upgrade to the 5dIII.

Wedding/event photographers are gonna love the 5dIII, it'll probably become one an urban legend.

 

[psolberg]

IMHO the 5D line was a landscape and studio camera. So if you take the pixel pitch of a 7D and move it to FF you'd end up in the 40MP range and that's where I would have like to see it. Are your 7D images not detailed enough? don't you sing praises to them all the time? so yeah, hate to break it to you but your lenses are more than up to the task. I would have liked to maximize them.

the new 5D is more of a sports/action body. while it is perfectly ok for other uses, it simply didn't push the bounds. If you shot landscapes or studio where ISO and FPS aren't a top priority, you got 1 more MP for 1000 more dollars and that's about it.

 

[mb66energy]

48 MP should have been fine ... to create 12 MP images with 4 subpixels (r+g+g+b) with true 16 bit dynamic range and 48 MP images if you really need the resolution.

BUT ...
22 MP means 5760 x 3840 pixels or in terms of a large scale print 5.8 x 3.8 metres with 1 sqare mm sized pixels corresponding to an eyes resolution in roughly 2 metres distance. That's appropriate.

AND ...
I am shure that most macro lenses and good primes are limited to that resolution across the image field. 60 lines/mm -that is a high resolving power for primes - meanst roughly 120 pixels per mm or in terms of sensor pixels on x/y axis: 4230 x 2880 pixels!

IMHO high dynamic range and good per pixel sharpness of the sensor and RAW-conversion (DPP) software might much more contribute to good image quality ... and let's see what the 5DIII delivers!

 

[RobS]

for me as studio only people/food/items stock photographer the 5dIII was a slap in the face. Most of the upgrades the new 5dIII comes along are not needed in studio, more fps, so much AF points, and video.
I'm sure the 5DIII will be a great camera but like the 5DII it not that kind of camera i hoped for.
As i earn money even with MP so i hoped for more, not necesary 40+ MP but i hoped for about 28-32MP.
A year ago my last 5DII broke so i was waiting with the 7D from my wife, now i will buy a new 5DII and wait a couple of month saving money and hoping Canon will spend us studio photographers a suitable upgrade ... if not i will look at MF or at Nikon.

sorry for my bad english

 

[moreorless]

IMHO the 5D line was a landscape and studio camera. So if you take the pixel pitch of a 7D and move it to FF you'd end up in the 40MP range and that's where I would have like to see it. Are your 7D images not detailed enough? don't you sing praises to them all the time? so yeah, hate to break it to you but your lenses are more than up to the task. I would have liked to maximize them.

In terms of specs perhaps it was but in terms of who was buying it I'd say probabley not, many users who wanted the IQ but couldnt afford a 1Ds mk2/mk3 probabley went for 5D's inspite of rather than because of the basic AF and low FPS.

A crop body is only going to test the sweet spot of a lens aswell and boarder performance is obviously going to be a big part of any landscape system. Seeing how the D800/D800E perform with Nikons lenses is really going to be a desider for me.

the new 5D is more of a sports/action body. while it is perfectly ok for other uses, it simply didn't push the bounds. If you shot landscapes or studio where ISO and FPS aren't a top priority, you got 1 more MP for 1000 more dollars and that's about it.

I'd say its more of an all rounder in the mold of the 1Ds mk3.

I'd guess that either we'll see a new Canon body specifically targetting landscape/studio use or Canon have given up on this market believing that either its lenses arent up to it or its simpley too small with MF above.

 

[richard_mitchell]

I'm perfectly comfortable with the 22mp count. There are pros and cons to higher MP, and I think the higher ISO capabilities and focus capabilities (fingers crossed) may make up for the overall larger image size.

 

[LukieLauXD]

With all the hype from 36MP D800, and the fact that it would cost a lot more than the $2k I paid for my 5D2, it would've taken at least 32MP on the 5D3 for it to have changed my mind. :-\

 

[Dylan777]

I'm not a pro nor studio guy...so current specs on 5d III is what I'm looking for - Better AF, Better ISO, and faster in fps.

After placing a pre-order 5d III through BH, I just sold my 5d II on CL for $1945. A profit of $45 is in my pocket (bought 5D II last x-mas for $1900 new at BH and now sold for $1945 through CL) I thought I would loose a hundred or two, GUESS NOT

 

[sjprg]

46MP. So I'm off to Nikon. If the 645 comes down to an afforable level I'll go there.